The Science of Star Wars 538
anonymous lion writes "National Geographic has an interesting interview with a couple of scientists on the scientific reality of Star Wars. For example, related to the cohabitation of humans and Gungans on NabooSeth Shostak states, "So maybe it's possible to share, as long as neither species has the technology to obliterate, enslave, or merely cook and eat each other.""
Cohabitation (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't that qualify more as "The Sociology of Star Wars"?
Fighters make sound in a vacuum. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can the Death Star travel at lightspeed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Assume nothing. It's all but spelled out in the movie. "Move the station", "hey, where'd that come from?" and all the rest.
Practically speaking, what use is a planet-destroying weapon that can't move between planets to destroy?
Clueless (Score:3, Insightful)
> technology to obliterate, enslave, or merely cook and eat each other.
What a crock. Forget the tech and look to morals and clue for the answer. How many countries on THIS planet have the tech to "obliterate, enslave or cook" most of the rest of the population? Obviously it isn't a techological limit. And besides, those Gungans appeared to have a fair bit of tech themselves.
Re:ha ha, yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets say the republic is 10,000 years old (as is alluded to in the movies). Thats mean they've had 10,000 years to turn Us and them to just Us. Culture shares a large part in that, The europeans went from backward thridworld area continually warring with itself to a fairly unified entity in less then 1000 years. It's not hard to imagine, given 10,000 years the various races of the republic would start identifying themselves as a hetrogenous whole rather then a group of distinct peoples.
The scientific breakthrough of our times (Score:4, Insightful)
The secret's out, people. Now everyone knows that Star Wars is not actually "hard" science fiction!
At least they didn't do a study or anything. [slashdot.org]
Re:Cohabitation (Score:5, Insightful)
related to the cohabitation of humans and Gungans on NabooSeth Shostak states, "So maybe it's possible to share, as long as neither species has the technology to obliterate, enslave, or merely cook and eat each other."
Doesn't that qualify more as "The Sociology of Star Wars"?
Yeah, it does seem as though the authors are making the assumption that all species are going to beat the crap out of each other. I realize that competition for resources is common among many species here on earth but we all come from a common ancestor if you look far enough back. Does this need for conquest really have to be the same for all life everywhere? If one species really had a superior advantage over another, does it necessarily follow that they will try to dominate them? I think it's at least possible that some species will learn to share resources with other creatures on their planet right away.
GMD
it isn't so much the science as the plot holes (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, spoiler coming, turns out that wasn't the best idea. As Yoda predicted he went to the dark, a bunch Jedis got it in scenes reminiscent of the original Godfather.
Somehow Obi makes it. Hooks up with Luke eighteen years later and says, basically, screw it four years old may be too old to be a Jedi but eighteen is no problem. No freakin way a half assed jedi could get turned to the dark side and make things even efffin worse. I'll train Luke.
Fake science I can live with, clear jedi incompetence is a bit harder.
Re:Clueless (Score:3, Insightful)
> happened to have well-armed starfighters at their disposal.
Only kind of pacifists that survive long. If you would have peace, know war. Heck, even the 'peaceloving' French have a carrier battle group rusting away at harbor.
Cool article, but a few issues. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Yoda knew Luke was coming. It wasn't coincidence that he lost control of his fighter and landed in Yoda's back yard. That was the Force. They mention that it might be the case, but aren't sure. Well, it is.
2. There's very little or no liquid water on Tatooine, which they say. But they neglect the fact that this is obvious. Uncle Owen runs a moisture farm, which collects water vapor through a series of vaporators spread across the desert. They grow crops underground in tunnels.
3. Chemists correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the molecular weight determine where oxygen might occur in an atmosphere? If Tibanna, a gas used in heavy blasters in the Star Wars galaxy, weighs more than oxygen, isn't it very possible that there would be oxygen above it? Maybe it's something that's common in the upper atmosphere (we see mining pods floating around), but is breathable in its natural form, sort of like how nitrogen makes up a good part of our breathable atmosphere?
4. They totally copped out on Coruscant. They worry too much about the location. I'd figure that all this intense development on Coruscant might have started long before anybody decided it would be the seat of galactic government. Sure they risk a lot by being there, but you don't want to make the trash on the other side of the outer rim fly all the way across the galaxy, do you? Location, location, location!
5. I don't think Hoth is right in the asteroid field. The Falcon had to fly for a while before they got to it, and eventually (it seems conceivable that the trip took weeks) made it to Bespin. Even at sublight speeds, space vessels in the Star Wars galaxy have got to be pretty fast. All kinds of junk from space makes its way to Earth's atmosphere every day, and it hasn't stopped us from developing civilization. I don't see why the occasional small meteorite would stop animals from living on Hoth.
It seems that for a couple of scientific types, those guys didn't really ask enough of the right questions. That's all I've got.
Re:No Continuity in their Argument (Score:2, Insightful)
It does happen in the Star Wars galaxy. The Wookiee planet of Kashyyyk shares its system with Trandosha, home of the reptilian Trandoshans. Trandoshans make a hobby out of killing Wookiees and wearing their fur.
So it can go either way, but to take it as a given that one species will kill the other one for the hell of it is kind of dumb...
It's still science, sort of (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cohabitation (Score:5, Insightful)
Like if, for example, one species lives on dry land and the other lives far below the surface of the ocean, you mean?
Re:Clueless (Score:3, Insightful)
And he was teleological as all hell. So what if an underwater species would come somewhat late to fire? They could build considerable technological prowess on other paths, including hyraulics, mechanics, and even bioelectrics. Such anthropomorphism, and such an assumption that development is a clean, predictable line - it's the kind of naivete that someone who gets their sense of history from Sid Meier games would have.
Re:Cohabitation (Score:2, Insightful)
Strangely enough he couldn't eat with manners at the table but he can keep his foolishness under wraps for the 5 seconds he's in a funeral parade in RotS.
Re:C3PO (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh man, this is just dumb! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lucas and/or some non-scientific Hollywood writer types made some shit up that they thought would fly. It's just dumb for scientists to sit around and come up with justifications for it after the fact when so much of it is so dumb to start with. It doesn't serve the cause of education.
Star Wars is Philosophy & Star Trek is Tech (Score:4, Insightful)
Heck, the next-to-last episode of "Star Trek: Enterprise" actually had a zoomed-in camera shot of a Carl Sagan memorial on mars.
By contrast, the gem of "Stars Wars" is not the technology but, rather, is the philosophy: the battle between good and evil. One of the themes of that battle is that good will triumph if you stick to your ideals. In the original trilogy, the Force was available to all, and Obi Wan Kenobi even offered to teach the Force to Han Solo, but the swashbuckler was too arrogant to accept the offer.
Notice how "Star Wars" I and II rather sucked after Lucas tried to inject all that technology into the movies. First and foremost is that concept of midichlorians (which turned the notion of Jedi into some sort of snobbish club into which you are born -- if you inherit midichlorians in your blood). Then, Lucas packs every scene with speedsters (air-borne cars), special effects, etc. All that technology just smothered what little philosophy was there.
300 years from now, the original "Star Wars" trilogy will still be watched by our descendents. The philosophy of "Star Wars" has made it timeless.
I cannot say the same for "Star Trek" or the "Star Wars" prequels.
Re:Can the Death Star travel at lightspeed? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can travel fast, in space, but at the price that you're going to be subject to more intense radiation. So, the faster you go, the more effort you need to put in to shielding (by whatever means), which means more mass, which means more energy is needed, which means a larger percentage of the vehicle is going to need to hold engines and fuel. Which means that if you plan on having enough oxygen and supplies to go round, you're going to have less range.
This means that, for any given technology, speed is going to be pitted against range. With chemical rockets and lead shielding, the limits are going to be fairly low, as the effectiveness of the rockets isn't great but the mass of the shields is. With antimatter and some sort of shielding based on QM exclusion, your limits are much higher, but they'll still be there.
You can travel slowly, not get so much radiation, but would need a much larger vessel to do so. In order to maintain the integrity of anything large enough, against little things such as gravity wells or even the inertia when you want to make a turn at the lights, you need more infrastructure, which means more maintenance, which means more of your resources are spent on keeping together than going anywhere.
Now, we've got a minimum constraint - go too slowly, and you won't get there at all. Again, more advanced technology will make for better materials and all that, so this is a moving target, but they'll still have a lower limit.
A similar problem is faced with wormholes, assuming they can be made navigable. You need exotic matter of equal or greater mass than the vehicle planning on travelling. The more massive the vessel, the more exotic matter you need. Unless you're travelling from a fixed station (a-la the book version of "Contact"). you've got to lug around a generator capable of sustaining enough exotic matter that the wormhole doesn't spontaneously collapse along its entire length. And exotic matter doesn't last long - about 10^-30 seconds - so you need to be able to generate an awful lot of it, for long enough to do the travelling.
My proposition, then, was that any given type of technology MIGHT be able to travel between the stars, but that there would be upper and lower limits on how far or how fast. Below some level of achievement in a given technology, the bounds cannot be satisfied - the minimum would be greater than the maximum, so there is no value that will work.
However, there's an upper limit to what any technology can do, too. Antimatter can't supply more energy than the mass-equivalent posesses, no matter how good the conversion, for example. So, some technologies may NEVER be good enough to be used.
My proposition to the class was a simple one. Working from the idea of limits, is it possible to prove that a technology must (or, indeed, cannot, through a non-existance proof) exist that can satisfy all of the constraints?
In other words, is it possible to show that no technology - even technologies we know nothing about - could ever be sufficient to travel between the stars? Or is it possible to imagine such a technology, and perhaps even have some idea as to what properties that technology would need to have to make such travel possible?
The class seemed divided on this, but the answer seemed to be that it was unlikely that such travel was possible. The problem with the limits seemed to be unsolvable, although we couldn't find any obvious way of proving that by reasoning alone.
I suspect the reason aliens AREN'T here (or, if they are, at least not common) is that the difficulties are great enough as to put it beyond the reaches of any but the most advanced, assuming even they can. And by being so difficult, there would be really no interest in visiting a star u
Arrogant Science (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because your race/species' progression along your race/species' tech tree follows one path and have certain pre-requisits doesn't mean another species has to.
While the humans are sitting around in their cars, congratulating themselves on their brilliant wheels and combustion engines, a parallel but different species may well be wondering why the hell humans haven't figured out that really obvious teleporting trick that just relies on simple [to them] bacteria and water based science.
For hundreds of years, similarly arrogant Europeans congratulated themselves on how advance they could make their tin suits and big imposing castles. They laughed at those strange Eastern folk in their silly bamboo armor and paper houses. Right up until those weird Eastern guys invented this cool stuff called gun powder. At which point the really advanced armor and castle construction suddenly seemed painfully, embarassingly backward.
Besides, much as I despise supporting Gungans... He's putting down a speciest that are comfortably amphibious competing against one that's air breathing only.
The sciences he quotes have only been around for the last five thousand years or so, most for only a couple of hundred - a mere blip in evolutionary terms. So, assuming both species evolved to the point where they could learn such technologies at the same time, what would happen?
Humans invent fire.
Gungans wander out of the water and try to copy it.
Humans chase Gungans away.
Gungans run to the safety of the water where humans, having not invented submarines yet, can't follow.
Repeat a few thousand times until Gungans get lucky. Now they have fire too.
At the same time...
Gungans invent [some basic water driven tech]
Humans can't copy it because they can't enter the water and see it.
So Gungans get every human tech and they get all of their own. And a pompous human scientist sits there observing how they can't possibly smelt metals or invent radios while some water based tech that he's never heard of, fused with smelting, radio and everything else they simply copied, obliterates his entire species.
Well, except that they're stupid idiots which we all hated but actually, when you think about it, is the only way to explain why they didn't wipe the limited air breathing humans out millenia ago.
Of course, we pompous humans are so convinced our approach is the only one that we apparently miss all that.
Re:Already been done before... (Score:4, Insightful)
WDPUAWTAGTWOTWPA?
(why do people use acronyms when they are going to write out the whole phrase anyway?
Re:Fighters make sound in a vacuum. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just an elementary safety precaution, which follows from the other rules. War zones are rather dangerous for cameramen, especially if you're trying to shoot your own script instead of following along with friendly troops.
Since Dogme doesn't allow construction of sets or otherwise shooting in a faked location, the only way to film a warzone would be to BE in a warzone, which is just too dangerous. In the unlikely event you are actually brave enough to film there, then of course it's not superficial.
Likewise, actions can only be shown if the actors do them, so a Dogme 95 murder scene would be an illegal "snuff" film...
Re:Can the Death Star travel at lightspeed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Clueless (Score:2, Insightful)
Google says civili[sz]ed means:
"This term is often used as a value judgement to indicate that the person or society in question has attained a higher level of culture, a more complex system of government, and a superior set of beliefs, morals, and behaviours"
And you reckon that the US is more civilized than anyone else? How many countries have you initiated military action on in recent years, again?
Re:Star Wars is Philosophy & Star Trek is Tech (Score:3, Insightful)
Star Trek has at least as much philosophy if not more. plus it's a far more focused on how we should live our lives.
Star Trek was the first program to have an interracial kiss and showed a ship full of different races working together.
in Star Wars the hero was an aryan brat, the only black guy was Judas, the baddies had a french accent, all wrapped up with a philosophy about as deep as the lyrics to a Britney Spears song.
Re:Cohabitation (Score:3, Insightful)
You are only a bigot if you are intolerant, not if you disagree. I can disagree with modern Christianity all I want and not be a bigot. When I become unwilling to listen to differing opinions, then I'd be a bigot.
Re:Cognitive gaps are more signficant (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a fair point, but it's surprisingly difficult to avoid. Sub-human intelligences are just dumb/goofy/difficult to take seriously. And superhuman intelligences: well, it's logically impossible for somebody to write a story about a person who's smarter than the writer. (That is, it's entirely possible to write about "the greatest detective who ever lived", but it's impossible to write about him making any leap of deduction you couldn't have made yourself.) Iain M. Banks, whom I perceive as one of the smartest people in science fiction, comes pretty close when he writes about the thousands-of-times-smarter-than-humans Minds who inhabit the Culture universe, but he can't write about a Mind acting smarter than he is.
This is also why so many people - even supposedly smart people - behave stupidly in TV shows. Because the writers aren't that clever.
Re:Absurd plot holes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Star Wars is Philosophy & Star Trek is Tech (Score:3, Insightful)
People have great potential. They can choose to use it for good, but it's hard work. It's easy to use it for evil. But even if, because you're weak and vulnerable to human emotion, you do use it for evil - huge, Hitler-dwarfing, child-butchering, planet destroying, evil - you can make up for it so long as you eventually realise you were wrong, and ask the forgiveness of your kids.
That isn't simplistic - it's insulting.